Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

4-You-Foods: A Licensing Case with Many Issues, Many Nuggets on Due Process

By E.L. Lipman

Not since law school has there been as many issues and sub-issues in the fact pattern of a licensing case, as were in an unpublished opinion issued yesterday by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. And, with the determined precision of a student who has earned top marks, Judge Doris Huspeni, sitting on the panel by designation, opens and unpacks a series of challenges from the Minneapolis grocer 4-You-Foods. In the end, the panel affirmed the Minneapolis City Council?s decision to revoke the store?s license ? but along the way, practitioners and court-watchers learn a number of interesting things.

Among the challenges to the revocation action made by the licensee, were two attacks on the procedures employed by the Minneapolis City Council. The licensee claimed it was denied due process of law because the Administrative Law Judge?s report in the matter was referred to a Committee of the Council for review ? a committee whose quorum and membership were each less than a majority of the entire Council. Turning away this challenge, the panel held that because the entire Council received and had access to the undelying record, an initial review by a Council Committee did not violate due process of law.

Further, the licensee argued that the Committee Chairman?s recording of a late-arriving Council Member?s vote in favor of revoking the license, after a requisite quorum of the Committee had earlier voted to take this action, entitled the licensee to a remand. While acknowledging that the City Council had pledged to follow Robert?s Rules of Order during its proceedings, and this vote tally did not follow a proper motion for reconsideration under Robert's Rules, the appellate panel declined to remand the matter ?on this minor parliamentary procedure error.? As the panel reasoned, where it was clear that the later-arriving member intended to join her colleagues in urging revocation by the full Council, a remand was not appropriate.

Lastly, and perhaps of broader interest, the panel turned away the licensee?s challenge to City Charter provisions which state that business licenses may be revoked for ?good cause? shown. The licensee argued this standard was unconstitutionally vague. Disagreeing, the panel noted that this standard had survived an earlier facial challenge before the Minnesota Supreme Court, and that ?as-applied? to the licensee?s activities, the conditions of the license itself assured that the licensee did not have to guess as to what events might trigger a later license revocation.

The panel?s complete analysis ? on these issues and more ? is accessible here.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on January 30, 2008 (boomark / email).